What difference did $190 billion make for student success coming out of the COVID-19 health crisis?
Not as much as you might think.
An ESSER spending analysis by Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University found some puzzling instances where funneling more money into a pandemic-worsened problem didn’t help schools recover.
The data ultimately points to no “silver bullet” in spending aimed at improving students’ academic performance since the pandemic, says Marguerite Roza, director of Edunomics Lab.
Return on Investment
A crunch of the numbers found that states varied widely when it came to the return on investment of their ESSER dollars. Both reading and math scores increased in districts in states like Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee, where the rate of ESSER spending per student was relatively high (over $1,000) from 2022 to 2023.
States like Nevada, California and South Dakota were also high spenders, but they saw some of the lowest gains in reading and math during the same time period.
Analysts said the difference likely came down to leadership in some states being “simply more effective at steering districts to focus on student learning” in the face of vague spending guidelines from the federal government. Leaders in Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee focused on setting clear goals and checking progress for reading and math performance.
Each chart shows the ESSER funds each district spent per student during the 2022-23 school year compared to the average years of learning gains or losses in reading and math. Source: Edunomics Lab.
The rise of AI promises new solutions to long-standing challenges. It also introduces some challenges of its own. In addition to concerns over privacy, bias and reliability, AI is driving a flood of new products in a broad range of sectors, including education. As options pile up, districts and schools struggle to identify effective solutions amid clever marketing and bold promises.
As a member of the LEARN Network, a federally funded initiative dedicated to supporting the development and scaling of quality educational products and programs, I've collaborated with researchers, developers, practitioners and educational leaders from across the country. Over the years, our team has gained unique insights into why some products succeed, why others fail, and what districts and schools may consider when selecting new tools and programs.
Effective edtech has never — and should never — be designed to replace human relationships with students.
One lesson we’ve learned is that the current wave of AI-powered edtech is not all that different from the products and programs we are used to. Some products show promise; others fall flat. Though options are more plentiful and technology advanced, schools must remain diligent in their selection processes. Based on our work and our conversations with leaders in this space, here are some important questions to ask while searching for an edtech solution in the age of AI.
What Does It Do?
Effective edtech has never — and should never — be designed to replace human relationships with students. In response to the rise of school-based AI programs, policymakers in states like California and Minnesota and organizations like the National Education Association are pushing to ensure that educators remain at the center of education. Quality edtech, whether powered by AI or not, should work to enhance educational effectiveness and efficiency.
One key differentiator decision-makers may consider is between student-facing AI, which students interact with directly, and products and programs designed for practitioners, administrators and other staff. Both uses require unique considerations. For example, for student-facing products, it is essential that developers use guardrails to prevent bias, protect privacy, and ensure reliability. For administrative applications, considerations will likely focus more on whether the edtech increases efficiency while leveraging the expertise of humans.
Does It Have a Solid Evidence Base?
The most critical factor in selecting edtech is its evidence base. Is there research to back its claims? If so, how reliable is that research? As we’ve found in our work, these can be difficult questions to answer.
Edtech only works if it can be implemented effectively. Products can fail if they are too cumbersome, don't fit into staff workflows or don't align with existing programs.
The Every Student Succeeds Act’s (ESSA) tiers of evidence can provide a useful framework for evaluating edtech, describing the varying degrees of research that can underlie a product. Simply meeting an ESSA tier of evidence, however, does not guarantee effectiveness. Products or programs that meet ESSA’s lowest tier, for example, may only be based on evidence-backed strategies or practices. The products themselves may never have been tested. Researchers Mary Bratsch-Hines and Heather Aiken, leaders behind the TRI-Reading App, expanded on the importance of comprehensive evaluation in a recent episode of The SRI Homeroom podcast.
“Sometimes people can claim that they are following the science of reading purely because they are covering the five elements from the National Reading Panel… But how they packaged it together, we don’t necessarily know that the program as a whole will work.” — Mary Bratsch-Hines, Senior Manager for Research and Evaluation at the University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning.
Edtech that meets ESSA’s highest tiers of evidence, Tiers 1 and 2, have been more rigorously evaluated, with findings cited in repositories like the What Works Clearinghouse.
However, a lack of evidence does not necessarily mean a product is ineffective. Some edtech, particularly in the age of AI, may be too new to boast an extensive research base. In these instances, products should at least present a compelling case and meet a priority need.
Schools may also consider compiling their own body of evidence. Examine developer briefs, speak with peers in similar contexts and, if you decide to move forward, conduct a pilot to generate real, localized evidence. H. Alix Gallagher, director of strategic partnerships for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), recently wrote about the piloting process for the LEARN Network blog.
Does It Really Meet Your Needs?
While evidence is crucial, it’s not the only factor that can influence the success or failure of a new product or program. Schools and districts should also carefully consider their goals. Is there a specific challenge you are attempting to address or a set of outcomes you hope to improve? Take some time to investigate your needs, speak with team members and ensure you fully understand the scope of your challenges and their root causes.
Some products claim to offer broad, generalized benefits and improvements for schools, faculty and students. In our conversations with educational leaders, however, we've found that teachers are often unlikely to adopt solutions to problems if they don't perceive them as significant. Ensuring that the technology addresses a recognized need is critical for successful implementation.
Does It Fit Your School Context?
Edtech should be designed to meet the needs of all students, fostering growth and equity through education. When products or programs aren't relevant or accessible to members of the communities they serve, they can inadvertently cause harm.
Edtech only works if it can be implemented effectively. Products can fail if they are too cumbersome, don't fit into staff workflows or don't align with existing programs. Examine your current systems, staff capabilities and capacity to determine if a product is a proper fit.
For example, the developers of A2i, an impactful, broadly scaled tool designed to improve literacy outcomes for young students, partly attributed its success to its integration with various learning management systems. Implementation can suffer when a product requires a radical departure from established processes, duties or expectations.
Districts and schools may also consider the unique needs of their community. Are there any structural, cultural or environmental factors that might limit some members’ access to a new product or limit its effectiveness for the community as a whole? Ensuring that the product fits your specific environment is crucial for its success.
How Was the Product Developed?
Effective edtech often results from extensive discussions, collaborations, revisions and iterations involving a diverse range of stakeholders. At the LEARN Network, we encourage researchers and developers to involve school and district leaders, educators and community members in the design phase of their work. Products that lack sufficient input can struggle with unforeseen challenges upon implementation.
In our recent webinar focused on rural schools and communities, a panel of researchers, practitioners and educational leaders cautioned against “drive-through approaches” to product design, encouraging developers to employ a more inclusive, community-focused approach to development.
Does It Prioritize Equity?
Edtech should be designed to meet the needs of all students, fostering growth and equity through education. When products or programs aren't relevant or accessible to members of the communities they serve, they can inadvertently cause harm.
The rise of AI-powered edtech offers districts and schools a unique opportunity to seek out new tools and programs that are accessible, equitable, and responsive to the needs of diverse learners. In a recent LEARN Network blog, we spoke with leading voices from the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP) Institute and SRI about this opportunity and some potential paths forward.
Free LEARN Network resources for researchers, developers and educators:
The LEARN to Scale Toolkit: a comprehensive resource for researchers and developers based on the Invent-Apply-Transition framework
Stories of Scaling: a profile series highlighting impactful researchers, entrepreneurs and evidence-based products
The LEARN Network Blog: articles, podcasts and Q&As featuring experts and thought leaders from across the U.S.
LEARN Network Research: action-oriented research briefs focused on product development, procurement and more
An effective method for centering equity in the edtech search process is by elevating student voice. Students are self-aware, highly technologically competent and carry unique experiences and perspectives on learning. By involving students in their piloting and procurement processes, districts and schools can help ensure they’re adopting technology that will serve all members of their community.
Decision makers can also prioritize student voice in their edtech search, considering products that have been designed and developed in collaboration with students. LEARN Network researcher Ela Joshi expanded on the value of student voice in this recent podcast.
Artificial intelligence has the potential to power effective new tools and approaches, reducing burdens on schools, fostering equity and inclusion, and helping students overcome long-standing barriers. As we’re seeing in other sectors, however, the letters “AI” are not always indicative of quality.
In their search for the next generation of edtech solutions, we must all avoid flash and continue focusing on fundamentals. By prioritizing evidence, understanding specific needs, ensuring contextual fit, examining how products are developed, emphasizing equity and including diverse voices in the search and selection processes, educational leaders can navigate the complexities of AI-powered edtech and find products that truly lead to better outcomes.
The information reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305N220012 to SRI International. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
Since the pandemic, the urgency of designing and scaling evidence-based products to support learning recovery has become more pronounced. Educational institutions are grappling with unprecedented disruptions and widening achievement gaps, making the need for effective, research-backed interventions critical. The focus is not only on creating these products but also ensuring they are adopted and effectively implemented in schools and classrooms across the country.
The Leveraging Evidence to Accelerate Recovery Nationwide (LEARN) Network, funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences, is at the forefront of this effort. Led by SRI International, a nonprofit with a strong track record of bringing innovations to market, the LEARN Network focuses on promoting learning growth by enhancing the use of evidence-based educational products.
The Network also comprises four product teams dedicated to adapting and positioning evidence-based products that boost literacy and math learning to make them more useful and accessible for educators. By providing learning and coaching opportunities, the LEARN Network aims to build the capacity of these teams and others in the field to equitably and sustainably scale educational products. This involves understanding educators’ problems of practice and needs and systems decision-making processes in product procurement, and developing tools for researchers, developers and educators to support the widespread adoption of effective solutions.
Jessica Mislevy Director of Digital Learning and Technology Policy, SRI Education
Recently, EdSurge spoke with education researchers Kerry Friedman and Jessica Mislevy about the importance of integrating evidence-based practices, educator input and a systems lens from the earliest stages of product development. Friedman, a former teacher with 12 years of experience in research and technical assistance, focuses on strengthening educators' and system leaders' ability to use evidence in practice. As the project director for the LEARN Network, she works with researchers and developers on capacity building and design of evidence-based products and programs. Mislevy is the director of digital learning and technology policy at SRI Education, specializing in mixed-methods evaluations of products designed to improve student outcomes in K-12 and post-secondary education. She is a co-principal investigator with the LEARN Network, focusing on educators’ effective adoption and scaling of evidence-based practices and programs.
EdSurge: Why are evidence-based products and programs so vital, especially at this point in time in America’s schools?
Mislevy: We've all seen how the COVID-19 pandemic upended education systems across the country, interrupting learning for students and exacerbating existing inequalities in education. We're seeing this reflected in the 2022 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress with the first-ever decline recorded in mathematics and the largest average score decline in reading in decades. Research shows that the quality of learning products and programs matters for student outcomes. Now more than ever, it's important to get those products that can improve education outcomes for all learners and eliminate persistent achievement gaps in districts and schools. Unfortunately, many effective products don't reach educators due to an overwhelming supply of products. It can be hard to select products that are effective and well-matched to students' needs and contexts, as well as affordable and easy to use.
What key considerations should researchers and developers keep in mind while designing and scaling products and programs?
Friedman: When considering scale, researchers often view it as the final step. However, designing a scalable innovation begins with the initial idea. This is where our framework for the LEARN Network starts. We adapted SRI International's Invent-Apply-Transition (I-A-T) framework to better fit the education sector, incorporating Liberatory Design principles focused on equity and systems thinking.
Kerry Friedman Senior Researcher, SRI Education
Both the I-A-T framework and Liberatory Design emphasize the importance of understanding users' needs from the start. This understanding forms the foundation of the Invent stage of the I-A-T framework. In the Apply stage, you assess the broader market, identifying key players, infrastructure, policies, and competition to refine your innovation. Finally, in the Transition phase, you consider how to scale your product, envisioning it at a systems level and exploring pathways to create a financially viable approach.
We created the Learn to Scale Toolkit to guide researchers through these stages and support the scaling process. We also profiled various products on their journeys from development to scale in our Stories of Scaling.
How is the Network working to increase the use of evidence-based products and programs in schools?
Mislevy: We're coming at it from both the supply and the demand side. On the supply side, the LEARN Network provides capacity building to researchers and developers in scaling their evidence-based products. So we support them in adapting their products while considering educator context, decision-making processes and usability. This has included a mix of one-on-one and cross-team coaching and consultation sessions to provide tools and training while also supporting and promoting team building and collaboration. In addition to SRI scaling experts, we also bring together other expert voices to contribute to these conversations. Then on the demand side, we're working to better understand the needs and barriers that educators face in adopting and scaling evidence-based products. We translate these findings into actionable takeaways for developers to ensure their products are more likely to be adopted and scaled.
Does the Network have any insights into school and district needs or how they select programs and products?
Free LEARN Network resources for researchers, developers and educators:
The LEARN to Scale Toolkit: a comprehensive resource for researchers and developers based on the Invent-Apply-Transition framework
Stories of Scaling: a profile series highlighting impactful researchers, entrepreneurs and evidence-based products
The LEARN Network Blog: articles, podcasts and Q&As featuring experts and thought leaders from across the U.S.
LEARN Network Research: action-oriented research briefs focused on product development, procurement and more
Mislevy: The LEARN Network conducted a focused study on K-12 education procurement practices to better understand how decision-makers determine which products to adopt in their schools and districts and how evidence is used in those decisions. We conducted in-depth interviews with a broad array of education leaders and other education stakeholders, and also conducted nationally representative surveys of public school and district leaders through the RAND American Educator Panels. We examined what motivates schools and districts to procure products, who is involved in the decision-making process and what sources of information leaders look to when selecting products. For example, we found that routine curriculum review cycles often motivated educators to procure core curriculum materials, whereas reviews of student outcome data more often led to the procurement of supplemental materials.
We also saw that teachers are reported as most involved in identifying and evaluating prospective products for their schools and districts, while school and district leaders are more involved in making final decisions about which products to select. In terms of usage, research and evidence were amongst the more influential sources for informing procurement decisions, though we found that recommendations from fellow education leaders and end users actually ranked higher. Our research has important implications for product developers so they really understand the systemic forces that influence when and why products are procured, as well as who is involved throughout that procurement process to increase the likelihood of product uptake and scale. We recently published on the LEARN Network website the first of several planned research briefs, which features lessons for developers ready to bring their products to market or scale to broader audiences.
The information reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305N220012 to SRI International. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
How to scale to new markets using pilots with international school operators.
GUEST COLUMN | by Michael Spencer
MAKSYM MAMCHUROV
It’s hard to ignore the ongoing macro market challenges in edtech right now: venture investing is at just 10% of peak 2021 levels, while K-12 budgets in the U.S. are facing a $65B revenue decline due to the ESSR funding cliff, declining enrollment and increasing labor costs.
At the same time, sales to schools has become ‘noisier’ as there are more and more K-12 startups selling products, while US school districts have cracked down after being inundated with sales offers and phishing scams that lead to ransomware attacks.
Global from the Get-Go
In this climate, the only viable route to success for edtech companies is adopting a global sales strategy from the get-go.
‘In this climate, the only viable route to success for edtech companies is adopting a global sales strategy from the get-go.’
Over the years, I’ve spoken with many edtech founders about go-to-market and many of them have expressed a reluctance to expand and sell into international markets. They cite long sales cycles, high costs and low success rates among the reasons they don’t want to do it. After all, selling to U.S. schools and districts is challenging in the best of circumstances, so why extend that effort to geographical markets you know even less about?
To Take Your Startup to the Next Level
However, the reality for many K-12 B2B founders, especially if they sell to U.S. school districts and/or organic growth has reached a saturation point, is that to take your startup to the next level, you need proactive early growth into international markets. As a long-time edtech executive turned early- to mid-stage investor, I believe that using channel partners to facilitate growth into thousands of untapped international school operators can be a highly successful way to scale your sales. Expanding into international markets while you’re trying to establish your company may sound daunting, but it’s often the simplest and fastest way to generate scalable, sustainable recurring revenue growth.
The Key is Pilots
So how do you put this into practice? The key is pilots.
What are pilots?
Pilot programs aren’t the same as product demonstrations, or even beta tests. Conducted effectively, pilot programs can help schools and companies together weigh the potential value and impact of new education tools in ways that tests alone typically can’t.
This makes pilots a critical part of the K-12 sales process. They are also a common fail-point for vendors, something I call ‘pilot purgatory’ – prolonged pilots with no clearly defined expectations, measure of success or decision points that don’t then convert to paid customers. The majority of schools lack the resources, know-how, tools and processes to conduct effective edtech pilots, so to make this the cornerstone of a successful global growth strategy, you need to be prepared to take the lead.
What does a successful edtech pilot program look like? What pitfalls should you avoid?
Advantages of pilots
‘Fail fast’ is a famous philosophy among startup entrepreneurs. For product developers, this means rapid testing and re-development to find what solves your users’ pain points most effectively. When testing and evaluating edtech solutions, it is most valuable to do it in the classroom with real teachers and students. This enables:
Feedback loops → the developer gets the most relevant feedback to support feature development by improving their understanding of how schools actually use technology and what the real needs of teachers, students and parents/carers are, as well as identifying potential challenges ahead of technology implementation. (For this reason, the famous accelerator Y-Combinator lists pilots as criteria in their guidelines for edtech products.)
Educator buy-in → pilot programs increase communication between schools and companies, as teachers can see the tool in action and founders develop a deep understanding of the way schools really work, their challenges and roles. Enhanced communication and collaboration among stakeholders creates a more connected learning community.
Evidence of efficacy → pilots are best practice to find product-market fit and pave the way to get VC funding. The biggest edtech-focused VCs, such as Reach Capital, guide companies to build their own efficacy portfolio.
Overcoming challenges for a successful pilot
1. Identify need – Clearly articulate the specific challenge your solution is trying to address so you can clearly communicate the value you will add to a school’s day-to-day operations. Exploring international markets doesn’t require a shift in mission, values, or approach. Students globally all face the same challenges – all that’s required to succeed in the international market is a strategic channel partner or school operator who knows what works and what they need to maximize your impact, to do your due diligence, and to ensure solutions are presented in a manner that the local market needs.
2. Plan – Agree with the school upon specific pilot objectives to ensure a shared vision and identify data that will be used to determine success. Set agreements with the school that outline roles and responsibilities, timelines and how results will be used.
3. Train and implement – Ensure teachers have training and tech support to enable strong implementation of your solution. Take a high-touch approach to onboarding students.
4. Collect data – Collect quantitative and qualitative data so you can determine whether the pilot objectives are being met. Create formal opportunities (such as surveys, focus groups and post-pilot debriefs) for teachers and students to give feedback. Send usage updates to the school regularly throughout the pilot.
5. Analyze and decide – Analyze collected data to evaluate whether the edtech tool met the pilot objectives.You can pilot something, but without a benchmark and post-pilot review, it is useless. Work with the school to understand and negotiate the total cost of implementing the edtech tool. (Consider ongoing costs for licensing, installation, training and tech support.)
—
Michael E. Spencer is founder and CEO of Global Expansion Strategies supporting founders and schools with all aspects of the pilot process. To date, 100% of GES pilots have gone on to full implementation, with significant impacts on student outcomes. Connect with Michael on LinkedIn.
Tech giants Google, Microsoft and OpenAI have unintentionally assigned educators around the world major homework for the summer: Adjusting their assignments and teaching methods to adapt to a fresh batch of AI features that students will enter classrooms with in the fall.
Educators at both schools and colleges were already strugglingto keep up with ChatGPT and other AI tools during this academic year, but a fresh round of announcements last month by major AI companies may require even greater adjustments by educators to preserve academic integrity and to accurately assess student learning, teaching experts say.
Meanwhile, educators also have scores of new edtech products to review that promise to save them time on lesson planning and administrative tasks thanks to AI.
One of the most significant changes was OpenAI’s announcement that it would make its latest generation of chatbot, which it dubbed GPT-4o, free to anyone. Previously, only an older version of the tool, GPT-3.5, was free, and people had to pay at least $20 a month to get access to the state-of-the-art model. The new model can also accept not just text, but spoken voice inputs and visual inputs, so that users can do things like share a still photo or image of their screen with the chatbot to get feedback.
“It’s a game-changing shift,” says Marc Watkins, a lecturer of writing and rhetoric at the University of Mississippi and director of the university’s AI Summer Institute for Teachers of Writing. He says that when many educators experimented with the previous free version of ChatGPT, many came away unimpressed, but the new version will be a “huge wake-up call” for how powerful the technology is, he adds.
And now that students and professors can talk to these next-generation chatbots instead of just type, there’s fresh concern that the so-called “homework apocalypse” unleashed by earlier versions of ChatGPT will get worse, as professors may find it even harder to design assignments that students can’t just have these AI bots complete for them.
“I think that’s going to really challenge what it means to be an educator this fall,” Watkins adds, noting that the changes mean that professors and teachers may not only need to change the kind of assignments they give, but they may need to rethink how they deliver material as well now that students can use AI tools to do things like summarize lecture videos for them.
And education appears to be an area identified by tech companies as a “killer application” of AI chatbots, a use case that helps drive adoption of the technology. Several demos last month by OpenAI, Google, and other companies honed in on educational uses of their latest chatbots. And just last week OpenAI unveiled a new partnership program aimed at colleges called ChatGPT Edu.
“Both Google and OpenAI are gunning for education,” says José Bowen, a longtime higher ed leader and consultant who co-wrote a new book called “Teaching with AI.” “They see this both as a great use case and also as a tremendous market.”
Changing Classes
Tech giants aren’t the only ones changing the equation for educators.
Many smaller companies have put out tools in recent months targeted at educational uses, and they are marketing them heavily on TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms to students and teachers.
A company called Turbolearn, for instance, has pushed out a video on TikTok titled “Why I stopped taking notes during class,” which has been viewed more than 100,000 times. In it, a young woman says that she discovered a “trick” when she was a student at Harvard University. She describes opening up the company’s tool on her laptop during class and clicking a record button. “The software will automatically use your recording to make notes, flashcards and quiz questions,” she says in the promotional video.
New AI tools can make audio recordings of lectures and automatically create summaries and flashcards of the material. Some educators worry that it will keep students from paying attention.
While the company markets this as a way to free students so they can focus on listening in class, Watkins worries that skipping notetaking will mean students will tune out and not do the work of processing what they hear in a lecture.
Now that such tools are out there, Watkins suggests that professors look for more ways to do active learning in their classes, and to put more of what he called “intentional friction” in student learning so that students are forced to stop and participate or to reflect on what is being said.
“Try pausing your lecture and start having debates with your students — get into small group discussions,” he says. “Encourage students to do annotations — to read with pen or pencil or highlighter. We want to slow things down and make sure they’re pausing for a little while,” even as the advertisements for AI tools promise a way to make learning speedier and more efficient.
Slowing down is the advice that Bonni Stachowiak has for educators as well. Stachowiak, who is dean of teaching and learning at Vanguard University, points to recent advice by teaching guru James Lang to “slow walk” the use of AI in classrooms, by keeping in mind fundamental principles of teaching as educators experiment with new AI tools.
“I don’t mean resisting — I don’t think we should stick our head in the sand,” says Stachowiak. “But it’s OK to be slowly reflecting and slowly experimenting” with these new tools in classrooms, she adds. That’s especially true because keeping up with all the new AI announcements is not realistic considering all the other demands of teaching jobs.
The tools are coming fast, though.
“The maddening thing about all of this is that these tools are being deployed publicly in a grand experiment nobody asked for,” says Watkins, of the University of Mississippi. “And I know how hard it is for faculty to carve out time for anything outside of their workload.”
For that reason, he says college and school leaders need to be driving efforts to make more systematic changes in teaching and assessment. “We’re going to have to really dig in and start thinking about how we approach teaching and how students approach learning. It’s something that the entire university is going to have to think about.”
The new tools will likely mean new financial investments for schools and colleges as well.
“At some point AI is going to become the next big expense,” Bowen, the education consultant, told EdSurge.
Even though many tools are free at the moment, Bowen predicts these tools will end up costing colleges at a time when budgets are already tight.
Saving Time?
Plenty of the newest AI tools for education are aimed at educators, promising to save them time.
Several new products, for instance, allow teachers to use AI to quickly recraft worksheets, test questions and other teaching materials to change the reading level, so that a teacher could take an article from a newspaper and quickly have it revised so that younger students can better understand it.
“They will literally rewrite your words to that audience or that purpose,” says Watkins.
Such features are in several commercial products, as well as in free AI tools — just last month, the nonprofit Khan Academy announced that it would make its AI tools for teachers free to all educators.
“There’s good and bad with these things,” Watkins adds. On a positive note, such tools could greatly assist students with learning disabilities. “But the problem is when we tested this,” he adds, “it helped those students, but it got to the point where other students said, ‘I don’t have to read anything ever again,’ because the tool could also summarize and turn any text into a series of bullet points.”
Another popular feature with new AI services is to try to personalize assignments by adapting educational materials to a student’s interest, says Dan Meyer, vice president of user growth at Amplify, a curriculum and assessment company, who writes a newsletter about teaching mathematics.
Meyer worries that such tools are being overhyped, and that they may have limited effectiveness in classrooms.
“You just can't take the same dull word problems that students are doing every day and change them all to be about baseball,” he says. “Kids will wind up hating baseball, not loving math.”
Meyer worries that many new products start with what generative AI can do and try to push out products based on that, rather than starting with what educators need and designing tools to address those challenges.
At the college level, Bowen sees potential wins for faculty in the near future, if, say, tools like learning management systems add AI features that can do tasks like build a course website after the instructor feeds it a syllabus. “That’s going to be a real time saver for faculty,” he predicts.
But teaching experts note that the biggest challenges will be finding ways to keep students learning while also preparing them for a workplace that seems to be rapidly adopting AI tools.
Bowen hopes that colleges can find a way to focus on teaching students the skills that make us most human, as AI takes over routine tasks in many white-collar industries.
“Maybe,” he says, “this time we’ll realize that the liberal arts really do matter.”
Login
